[Jack V Savage]

Originally Posted by Denter

Way to dodge the question.

Huh? Am I on trial here? You asked a question, and I explained why it's not as simple as you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by Denter

The answer is, new regulation has increased significantly under the Obama admin.

Yes, I predicted that you'd make that claim.

Originally Posted by Denter

-FactCheck.org (non-partisan) supports that the first two years of the Obama admin have seen a sharp increase in costly new regulations from the first two years of teh Bush administration. Bush's regulations cost approx. 60 billion over 8 years- Obama's regulatory cost was 40 billion in a little over two years. FactCheck.org : Cherry-picking on Regulation

And they acknowledge a slowdown from the later part of Bush's term. And again, note, Sustein's claim that the net benefit of new regulations was $35B (I had a typo on that in my other post).

Originally Posted by Denter

-David Brooks, a liberal, admits that the cost of regulation had increased significantly under Pres. Obama, but takes issue with Republican hyperbole on the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/op...y-liberal.html

WTF? Do you know who David Brooks is? He's not a liberal. And he's not exactly known as a source for factual data (or for accurate claims about anything, including what he's seen with his own eyes).

Originally Posted by Denter

So would you now admit that the Obama admin. has imposed a greater regulatory burden on the country on an annual basis than his predecessor?

I admit that it's a hard issue to discuss, that the administration claims a large net benefit to the regulations, that right wingers claim the opposite, and that it's an insignificant issue either way.